The presence of noninterest clauses in leases is of no significance here. The landlord was not compelled under the statute as it read prior to September 1, 1970 to place the security money in an interest-bearing account.
In enacting the statute in its original form affording the landlord the grace of maintaining such security deposits in either interest-bearing or noninterest-bearing accounts, the Legislature cannot be deemed to have made any promise to landlord that it would not change the direction as to deposits when it felt such change to be in the public interest (I.L.F.Y. Co. v. City Rent & Rehabilitation Administration, 11 N Y 2d 480, 491).
Under the Rent Stabilization Law, similar to the situation in pre-1947 rent control, there was a rollback of rents in leases with stipulated rent adjustments, usually increases. The law was upheld (8200 Realty Corp. v. Lindsay, 60 Misc 2d 248, affd. 27 N Y 2d 124; see, also, Mercado v. Walsh, 65 Misc 2d 616). The principle of rollback had been established in several prior cases instituted by landlord (see Wasservogel v. Meyerowitz, 300 N. Y. 125; Twentieth Century Assoc. v. Waldman, 294 N. Y. 571).
Generally, statutes which are remedial in nature are entitled to a liberal construction in aid of the object sought by the Legislature and with a view to the beneficial ends proposed (Fischer-Hansen v. Brooklyn Hgts. R. R. Co., 173 N. Y. 492; Saxon v. Saxon, 178 Misc. 781; Allen v. Stevens, 161 N. Y. 122).